Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Constitution Day and Citizenship Day

Since I have been asked to speak Wednesday at a Constitution Day rally I Googled the phrase and learned from Wikipedia:

Constitution Day (or Citizenship Day) is an American federal holiday that recognizes the ratification of the United States Constitution, and also recognizes all who have become citizens due to either coming of age or naturalization. It is observed on September 17, the day the U.S. Constitutional Convention signed the Constitution in 1787.[1]

The law establishing the holiday was created in 2004 with the passage of an amendment by Senator Robert Byrd to the Omnibus spending bill of 2004.[2] Before this law was enacted, the holiday was known as "Citizenship Day". In addition to renaming the holiday "Constitution Day and Citizenship Day," the act mandates that all publicly funded educational institutions provide educational programming on the history of the American Constitution on that day.[3] In May 2005, the United States Department of Education announced the enactment of this law and that it would apply to any school receiving federal funds of any kind.[4] This holiday is not observed by granting time off work for federal employees.

When Constitution Day falls on a weekend or on another holiday, schools and other institutions observe the holiday on an adjacent weekday.[4] This was the case in 2005, when Constitution Day was generally observed on Friday, September 16[2] and 2006 when the holiday was observed on Monday, September 18.

A guy (or even a country) could be forgiven for not remembering the creation or past celebration of this sort-of holiday. After all, a well-known dangerous man is said to have characterized the Constitution differently: "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" It sure has been treated that way.

So Ellen Taylor has assembled an array of rabble-rousers to speak at the Humboldt County Courthouse in Eureka tomorrow at noon+15. This will be my first public speaking event in several months, likely since I very quietly took my leave of absence from the Voter Confidence Committee (VCC). It was a sabbatical, and it is now ending. I've been talking with members of the group over the past several days and next weekend will attend my first VCC meeting in five or six months.

It is not a done deal, but the odds look good for a shift in the group's emphasis over the next seven weeks. Tomorrow I'll be speaking about what I'd like to see happen, whether with the VCC or not, and not just here but everywhere citizens are organizing for election integrity. Frankly, it will not be much of a new message, just a different presentation based on timing. What follows is basically a stream of consciousness outline preview...

It is well understood that federal "election" results are unprovable...

Nothing that can be done here in Humboldt or in any other single given location can make federal "election" results provable...

The government and media will tell us the results and expect us to accept them, which is exactly what we should not do...

We need not and should not wait until after the "election" event to make our opposition known to accepting unprovable results (the objection is not to any particular result, but rather the claim that any result is even knowable)...

In towns across the country, we need swelling groups of citizens to appeal to anyone claiming to represent the People, starting at the most local level, city councils on up, asking for a commitment to reject unprovable federal "election" results...

A further potential condition should be expressed, namely the twin prospects of the "election" being canceled, or a subsequent refusal to allow an orderly succession of power...

Some may not be willing to commit to standing up against unprovable "election" results, but would finally make their stand if the Bush regime will not yield power...

This scenario is not guaranteed to happen, of course, but at the same time nobody can credibly argue about anything at all by saying "they'd never do THAT"...

So in one way or another we are looking for buy-in from the People and our representatives (sic), amplifying two messages...

First, that WE DO NOT CONSENT to "election" results that can't be proven, and which attempt to assume our consent and take it for granted; but also...

We must stand up to the media and insist they do not report as fact what can't even be proven, a sentiment repeatedly expressed here at WDNC for more than two years, as shown below in a June 2006 Humboldt Advocate article I called at the time "Best Election Protest Signs Ever."

Photo credit: Elaine Weinreb

Well this is a start anyway. I'll be ad-libbing around these themes and hope to post at least audio tomorrow...

We Do Not Consent, Volume 1 (left) and Volume 2 (right), feature essays from Dave Berman's previous
blogs, GuvWurld and We
Do Not Consent, respectively. Click the covers for FREE e-book versions (.pdf). As of April 2010, paperbacks are temporarily
out of print. Click here for the author's bio.

Back Page Quotes

"Give a damn about the world you live in? Give a damn about what you and I both know
is one of the most shameful and destructive periods in American history? If so, do something
about it. You can start by reading We Do Not Consent."

"If in the future we have vital elections, the "no basis for confidence" formulation that
GuvWurld is popularizing will have been a historically important development. This
is true because by implicitly insisting on verification and checks and balances instead
of faith or trust in elections officials or machines as a basis for legitimacy, it encourages
healthy transparent elections. It’s also rare that a political formulation approaches scientific
certainty, but this formulation is backed up by scientific principles that teach that if
you can’t repeat something (such as an election) and verify it by independent means, it
doesn’t exist within the realm of what science will accept as established or proven truth."

— Paul Lehto, Attorney at Law, Everett, WA

"Dave Berman has been candid and confrontational in challenging all of us to be "ruthlessly
honest" in answering his question, "What would be better?" He encourages us to
build consensus definitions of "better," and to match our words with actions every day,
even if we do only "the least we can do." Cumulatively and collectively, our actions will
bring truth to light."

— Nezzie Wade, Sociology Professor, Humboldt State University and College of the Redwoods

"Dave Berman's work is quietly brilliant and powerfully utilitarian. His
Voter
Confidence Resolution provides a fine, flexible tool whereby any community can reclaim
and affirm a right relation to its franchise as a community of voters."

— Elizabeth Ferrari, San Francisco, Green Party of California

"This is an important collection of essays with a strong unitary theme: if you can't prove
that you were elected, we can't take you seriously as elected officials. Simple, logical,
comprehensive. 'Management' (aka, the 'powers that be') needs to get the message. 'The
machines' are not legitimizers, they're an artful dodge and a path to deception. We've had
enough...and we most certainly DO NOT consent."

"What's special about this book (and it fits because there's nothing more fundamental
to Democracy than our vote) is the raising of consciousness. Someone recognizing they
have no basis for trusting elections may well ask what else is being taken for granted."

— Eddie Ajamian, Los Angeles, CA

"I urge everyone to read "We Do Not Consent", and distribute it as widely as possible."